Path: news.nzbot.com!spool1.sonic-news.com!news-out.sonic-news.com!iad.highwinds-media.com!feeder.news-service.com!news.alt.net!fictitious-path
From: Brandon D Cartwright <user@example.net>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.prettyboy
Subject: Re: Warnings!
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 02:41:34 -0800
Lines: 442
Message-ID: <v434l4t5jchmc6q3gf6ug1obb1dru21r57@4ax.com>
References: <sis1l4ttmfp85dhj16eai4mvooviavhhm9@4ax.com> <k173l49adgf7a12v4j2cg5jol2o3m69n7k@4ax.com> <0001HW.C57739B6009C0679B01AD9AF@news.newscene.com>
Reply-To: as@if.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
X-No-Archive: Yes
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.prettyboy:4314
On 24 Dec 2008 03:00:01 -0600, Morpheus <Morpheus@dreamland.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 19:03:18 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright wrote
>(in article <k173l49adgf7a12v4j2cg5jol2o3m69n7k@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:52:17 -0500, 4s00th <4s00th@hushmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I hate to use this forum to step up on my soap box, but there is a
>>> real problem happening right now, and we need to be aware of it.
>>>
>>> We in the Western World -- or those who fall under it's sovereignty --
>>> have long cherished the idea that we represent certain human rights,
>>> specifically to this particular issue, the right to freedom of speech
>>> or expression. But we must now abandon this idea because of recent
>>> court and legislative decisions. I do not know how long these laws
>>> have been in effect in Canada, but written fiction and drawings or art
>>> that depict children involved in sexual activity is illegal child
>>> pornography despite the fact that they do not involve the activity of
>>> actual children. The US has actually had a precedent set in court that
>>> states that, by definition, illegal child pornography must involve
>>> actual children, meaning that only pictures or videos showing actual
>>> children can be considered illegal child pornography. Written accounts
>>> of actual children engaged in sexual activity is something of a gray
>>> area, but might be used as evidence against one if one is accused of
>>> molesting children. That definition has now been called into question
>>> by a Federal Appeals court that upheld a decision in a Virginia court.
>>>
>>> First of all, the defendant in the case had actual illegal child
>>> pornography in his possession, but the court decided to include in
>>> that category drawings that depicted children in sexual activity. One
>>> of the three judges dissented, and the lawyer will appeal, even
>>> petitioning the Supreme Court if necessary.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile in Australia, a judge has convicted a man of possessing
>>> illegal child pornography because he had a drawing of characters from
>>> the cartoon show The Simpsons involved in sexual activity. Of course,
>>> we are talking about a drawing, not a photograph. And of course, we
>>> are talking about children who are totally fictional characters -- and
>>> cartoon characters at that; the court could not even claim that the
>>> drawing depicted actual child actors portraying the characters. But
>>> the judge basically said something that semantically turns out to be,
>>> "Just because they aren't real doesn't mean they aren't real."
>>>
>>> And, let us not forget Great Britain. In jolly ol', the law has
>>> decided that adult actors portraying minors in movies or whatnot that
>>> depict sexual situations is illegal child pornography. Despite the
>>> fact that the actor is actually an adult and is only pretending to
>>> have sex or sexual activities, it's illegal child pornography. FTR,
>>> they don't convict the actor, but the movie people behind the film.
>>> Imagine what they think about written fiction or drawings!
>>>
>>> And, back in the states, courts are now attacking written fiction
>>> under obscenity laws. It's not illegal to possess or create something
>>> that is considered obscene, but it is illegal to distribute such. The
>>> courts have a long-standing precedent that states that obscene works
>>> do not have the protection of freedom of speech; however, the
>>> definition of obscene is totally based on opinion. In other words,
>>> there actually is NO definition of obscene. So we are stuck at the
>>> mercy of idiots who proclaim, "I may not be able to tell you what it
>>> means, but I know it when I see it!" So how do we determine what is
>>> obscene or not? If even 1 person thinks it isn't obscene, then is it
>>> really obscene? According to the law, the idea that "most average
>>> people would agree" that it is obscene means that it is obscene.
>>> Funny, I thought that the US Constitution guaranteed that everyone had
>>> the right to enjoy their own opinion -- but this idea in the court
>>> systems denies this right.
>>>
>>> But let's take a look at the bigger picture. Under these laws and
>>> decisions we must now remove some popular works from the book shelves.
>>> Stephen King's awesome work, It, depicts a scene in which 6 or 7
>>> children who are about 10-13 years-old have sex with each other: it
>>> has to go. Nora Roberts writing as JD Robb in her Eve Dallas books
>>> repeatedly depicts the rape experienced by a child no more than
>>> 7-years-old: they have to go, about 27 books shot to hell, and I don't
>>> even know about her romance novels! Laurel K Hamilton, in one of her
>>> Anita Blake novels graphically depicts the sexual molestation of a 13
>>> or 14-year-old boy while his little sister is physically abused; it
>>> also depicts sex involving vampires who are stuck at ages less than
>>> 14: they have to go. Brave New World depicts young school-age children
>>> (prepubescent) being encouraged to explore each other sexually: it has
>>> to go.
>>>
>>> I could go on, but the implication is clear. Western Civilization has
>>> declared war on the right to freedom of speech and expression, and the
>>> new era of book-burning has begun. Thought police are coming.
>>
>>
>> There is no artistic merit in child pornography produced to arouse
>> pedophiles sexually at the thought of abducting..torturing..raping and
>> murdering toddlers..
>>
>>
>> It's in aid of harmonization with the Optional Protocol to the
>> Convention on the Rights of the Child...
>>
>>
>> How is child pornography defined by the international organisations ?
>>
>>
>> http://www.childfocus-net-alert.be/uk/UK_childpornography_sub03.htm
>>
>> In the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the
>> Rights of the Child concerning the sale of children, the prostitution
>> of children and pornography displaying children, pornography
>> displaying children is defined as follows :
>>
>> "Any representation, by any means whatsoever, of a child indulging in
>> explicit sexual activities, real or simulated, or any representation
>> of the sex organs of a child, for mainly sexual purposes."
>> The Interpol Group of specialists in crimes against children has
>> adopted the following definition :
>>
>> "Pornography displaying children is the result of the sexual
>> exploitation or the sexual abuse of a child. It can be defined as
>> follows: any form of representation or utilisation of the sexual
>> exploitation of a child, including printed matter or audio material,
>> of which the main theme is the sexual behaviour or the sex organs of a
>> child."
>>
>> The definition of ECPAT (End Child Prostitution and Trafficking in
>> Children) is very similar to that of Interpol :
>>
>> "Pornography : visual representation of a child indulging in explicit
>> sexual activities, real or simulated, or obscene exposure of sex
>> organs aimed at providing sexual pleasure to the user; it includes the
>> production, distribution and/or use of this type of material.
>>
>> Pornography: the use of any sound recording instrument using a child's
>> voice, real or simulated, aimed at providing sexual pleasure to the
>> user; it includes the production, distribution and/or use of this type
>> of material ."
>> The Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe stipulates that
>>>
>>
>> "Child pornography' covers all pornography visually representing: a
>> minor indulging in sexually explicit behaviour; a person who appears
>> to be a minor indulging in sexually explicit behaviour; realistic
>> images representing a minor indulging in sexually explicit behaviour."
>>
>> The framework decision on combating the sexual exploitation of
>> children and child pornography by the Council of the European Union :
>>
>> depicts or represents:
>> 1. a real child involved or engaged in sexually explicit conduct,
>> including lascivious exhibition of the genitals or the pubic area of a
>> child; or
>> 2. a real person appearing to be a child involved or engaged in the
>> conduct mentioned in 1; or
>> 3. realistic images of non- existent child involved or engaged in the
>> conduct mentioned in 1."
>>
>>
>> COMMENTS ON THE REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP
>> Note by the Secretary-General
>>
>>
>http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/9ece253f9315fb3480256704
>
>> 004f0bbd?Opendocument
>>
>> "Child pornography means the commercialization, trading or
>> dissemination or the production or possession for these purposes of
>> any materials that constitute a representation of a child engaged in
>> or depicted as engaged in sexual activity or any representation of the
>> body of a child, the dominant characteristic of which is sexual
>> depiction."
>>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> ------------------
>>
>>
>> The US has not signed up for human rights for children so some forms
>> of child pornography are still not criminalized as of yet..and the
>> definition only covers visual depictions.
>>
>> However the producers of this sick child pornography can and are being
>> arrested and prosecuted..
>>
>> Utimately the hope is that via Interpol there will be no jurisdiction
>> where the producers of this filth can hide..nor any medium whatsoever
>> whereby by they can cater to the sick needs of child molesters..or
>> encourage the rape ..torture and murder of children..
>>
>> https://www.up.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/2263/1073/1/asubiaro_om_1.pdf
>>
>>
>> 3.2.1 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child
>> on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography
>>
>> As mentioned in the previous chapter, the CRC is the main instrument
>> that sets out the rights of the child. However, the CRC does not
>> this lacuna in the CRC, in 1993, the UN Commission on Human Rights
>> called for a working group to prepare a draft optional
>> protocol.
>>
>> The purpose of the protocol was to make sexual exploitation of
>> children an offence subject to universal jurisdiction.71 In effect,
>> this would have resulted in all states regardless of the
>> location of the offence or the nationality of the offender having
>> jurisdiction to try the offence.
>>
>> In 2000, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the
>> Child on the Sale of children,Child Prostitution and Child Pornography
>> (Optional Protocol) was adopted as an additional Protocol to the CRC.
>>
>> According to the Optional Protocol, child pornography is defined as
>> or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the
>>
>>
>> south Africa has a similar definition ..
>>
>> https://www.up.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/2263/1073/1/asubiaro_om_1.pdf
>>
>> However, on 27 October 2004, due to the increase in the availability
>> of child pornography on the Internet in South Africa, Parliament
>> passed an amendment to the 1999 FPA.117 The 2003
>> amendment seeks to achieve the following objectives:
>>
>>
>> provide for an obligation to report offences involving child
>> pornography; and to increase penalties for offences involving child
>>
>>
>> In line with the new amendment, child pornography is now defined as
>> simulated, or who is depicted or described
>>
>> (i) engaged in sexual conduct;
>>
>> (ii) participating in, or assisting another person to participate in,
>> sexual conduct; or
>>
>> (iii) showing or describing the body, or parts of the body, of such a
>> person in a manner or in circumstances which, within context, amounts
>> to sexual exploitation , or in such a manner that it is capable of
>>
>> The FPAB 2003 is a complete overhaul of the 1999 FPA and can be
>> regarded as a response to the growing increase of arrests of child
>> pornographers in South Africa and the relaxed sentences
>> provided for in 1999 FPA.120 In response to this, the FPAB has
>> increased sentence on conviction from five to ten years.121
>> Furthermore, child pornography has been recognised as one of the ways
>> in which a child can be sexually exploited.
>>
>> Additionally, the acts of producing, distributing and possession will
>> henceforth be counted as separate counts.
>>
>> Thereby creating a situation whereby a convict can be sentenced to 30
>> years imprisonment
>> --
>> --
>> " whenever the authorities uncover someone in possession
>> of child pornography,they are also identifying someone
>> who is potentially a real and active danger to children."
>>
>> http://www.csecworldcongress.org/en/index.htm
>
>I have removed the excessive cross-posting (what are you writing a novel?)
Nah..
4s00th has got to the heart of the debate and the cutting edge of
current trends in legislative developments and the debate deserves a
larger forum..
OTOH he is way too polite to spread the news to areas that need to
hear it..even though they are all on topic for the post..
>and will respond to AFP only.
fair enough..
>
>There are already laws on the books prohibiting forced participation in
>sexual acitivity (e.g. rape, kidnapping, torture, etc.) You insist on
>conflating participation of children in sexually oriented films or pictures
>as tantamount to 'abducting, torturing, raping and murdering todlers. They
>are not the same thing or even nearly so.
Not really..
The crux of the matter is the legality of depiction of these hideous
scenarios in virtual..textual or cartoon form for pedophiles to
masturbate to where no actual children necessarily exist..
With the exception of Frank McCoy's "productions" the cases do involve
depiction of these revolting activities as sexual stimuli..
>
>Can you provide any valid scientific evidence (not political statements)
>that participation of a child in the filming that child engaged in
>non-coercive sexual activity is harmful?
>
>By valid scientific study i mean something beyond case studies. Requirements
>would be a research methodology where some scientific rigor is involved and
>a sample from which generalizations can be made. A controlled comparison
>would be of interest.
A tall order given the hidden and criminal nature of such hideous
activities..
>A psychitrist's or psychologist's statement that pornography is harmful is
>not scientific evidience any more than the utterings of a witch doctor.
I don't necessarily disagree there actually..
>
>Such a study should be able to answer the question as to whether or not those
>children who have participated in pornography suffer substance abuse rates or
>mental health problems at a higher rate than their peers.
I take your point and will see if I can come up with such a study..
I guess then you will accept what you are doing is evil...right?
In the meantime back to 4s00th's debate
Virtual child porn's very real consequences
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_19_18/ai_87024964/print?tag=artBody;col1
Paul M. Rodriguez
Researching our story about the recent Supreme Court decision
approving "virtual" child pornography, we wanted to present a visual
image that would bring home the horror of this outrage. After
extensive calls to the top photo sources failed to produce anything
that approximated actual photography of the kind still banned by law,
we turned to the Internet. Brother, what a shock it was to see what's
out there on the World Wide Web. And we don't mean just every
imaginable (or unimaginable) version of hard-core porn, but even the
innocent listings that often are attached to pornographic materials.
Equally disturbing (and we'll explain this further on) were porn links
that led through images and virtual graphics that seemed not to be
pornography at all. In fact, a number of such "binary" sites we found
with the help of savvy Webmasters were shocking because they began
with the kind of harmless photographs and images of children that
might be found in school yearbooks, family albums or Sunday-school
bulletins.
The importance of the apparently innocent pictures is, in fact, at the
core of our laws against child porn, and it eviscerates the Supreme
Court's extraordinarily stupid decision that says virtual images of
children used as sexual props is okay because no crime against real
children is involved and so publication is protected by the First
Amendment.
Pornography involving consenting adults invokes far different issues
than child porn. Our society long ago distinguished the dramatic
differences between the two and decided that the latter is aberrant,
deviant, depraved and immoral. It endangers the safety of innocent
children, which is why it is illegal. It harms children who are
exploited foully to make it and it provides a potential catalyst for
pederasts and other sexual perverts who may go from images to the real
thing -- a crime in which victims often are psychologically crippled
or even murdered to ensure their silence. Society simply decided that
the risk of child rape being excited by this stuff is too great to be
tolerated.
Indeed, laws against child pornography are designed to accomplish two
things: 1) protect children from exploitation for its production and
2) create fire walls to prevent such material from being obtained by
wanna-be, in-waiting or impulse-driven child-sex predators who the
courts, law enforcement, victims and even the criminals themselves
claim are excited to act out their loathsome fantasies by pornographic
images of children. The medical profession long has believed that
those convicted of child-sex abuse are unlikely ever to be cured of
their "illness." Some penologists claim there literally is a 100
percent recidivism rate for pederasts.
Which brings us back to those seemingly innocent photographs and
images of children on the Internet. It puzzled us, so we followed an
escalating trail of pornographic links with headers such as "virtual
porn," "child porn" and similar variations. Not only were the
pornographers baiting a virtual path to their hard-core sites with
images of innocence, but whoever did this understood that their
pederast clientele wants to pursue child sex by sorting through
pictures of normal children. The search for the victim is part of the
perversion that drives some to harm children.
Unless the government case was completely incompetent, the Supreme
Court should have known all of this, yet it ignored the prevention
aspects of the law against virtual child porn that it struck down. In
doing this the court brazenly and irresponsibly dismissed an essential
ingredient of that law: recognition of the effects even virtual child
porn has on encouraging potential child molesters.
In conversations with some of the leading entrepreneurs of virtual
technology we learned something else that the apparently ignorant
Supreme Court majority overlooked. The industry already can create
human images indistinguishable from images of real people and can
animate them to do anything at all. Virtual reality is just that --
images of computer-generated humans made to act in any way their
creators wish them to behave. Check out the image from Final Fantasy:
The Spirit Within that illustrates Kelly Patricia O'Meara's story on
page 18. The virtual girl appears real in every way. The same thing is
being done pornographically, we're told, with virtual children
engaging in sexual acts -- children indistinguishable from real
children to the pederasts, whetting their appetites for molestation.
Indeed, we're told by medical and law-enforcement experts, molesters
excited by child porn who attack children don't give a damn whether it
is real or virtual when the one is indistinguishable from the other.
Unfortunately, in its rush to judgment, the liberal majority that now
dominates the Supreme Court failed to see the bigger picture. For that
matter, it failed even to see the images of real and virtual child
porn that are indistinguishable.
Congress and the Bush administration are working to overcome the high
court's blunder. Perhaps part of that effort ought to include a
cyber-warfare agency that employs the military or intelligence
technology now used to hunt down terrorists via the Internet. It
should be a relatively simple matter to apply existing child-porn
standards against the international child-porn terrorists and their
client-agents who are waging a real war against our very real
children. Our kids are the ones who are "virtual" targets of
child-porn predators.
Thank God we have the First Amendment. It allows us to say directly
that the damned-fool Supreme Court justices responsible for this
abomination should be horsewhipped.
PAUL M. RODRIGUEZ IS THE MANAGING EDITOR OF Insight MAGAZINE.
--
" whenever the authorities uncover someone in possession
of child pornography,they are also identifying someone
who is potentially a real and active danger to children."
http://www.csecworldcongress.org/en/index.htm
|
|